a better question is why is everyone using the 100% conversion of gas I guess it's the same people who think solar roadways is a great product .. or can pull water out of the air into a water bottle

using 100% conversion rate is claiming it's equal to 3 gallons of gas

=300 miles but in reality it's 10 gallons of gas as noted by the CX-3 which is = to the mustang version..

also btw the part were it says "Fossil Fuel Free" is a joke it should just say powered by Fossil Fuel Coal,CNG and nuclear ( are types of fossil fuels)

so unless your generating the power from wind or solar on site to the "electric car" you are still generating emissions.. that will never be off set..

unless you live near a hydro power plant it's not fossil free or negative offset

What else should be used to approximate the energy economy of electric vehicles?
All the mpge does is show how inefficient regular gas burners are.
The only people who still think solar road ways are a good idea are the people trying to sell them. I have always antagonized them, even when they were brand new and hadn't been tested.

I know there is nothing fossil fuel free about electric cars. When you remind people of this over on the Nissan leaf forum they get all bent out of shape.
People here are not that delusional.
I know my leaf gets about 2 miles to a pound of coal.
Wind or solar power on the gird is only there because it rides on the backs of stable, reliable, controlable fossil fuel, fissile fuel power and some times hydro power.
Solar power tends to be more predictable, is easier to control than wind and comes on line and produces peak power when demand tends to peak.

it's based off the CX3 mazda quick edit in ms paint
it's obviously a slightly face lifted version of it

The CX-3 is a small crossover (168.3" long/69.6" wide/60.7" tall, 101.2" wheelbase, 12.4 cubic feet of luggage space behind the rear seats) on a 5-year-old platform with a torsion beam rear suspension. The Mach E is a large crossover (186" long/74" wide/63" tall on a 117" wheelbase, 29 cubic feet of cargo space with the seats up) with a battery in the floorpan, axle motors, and an independent rear suspension. They aren't even close to the same car.

Also, reading through Ford's press package--the Mach E has 18" front discs in its lowest trim, and 19" discs all around in the GT. The one specification none of their materials list is weight, but it must be heeeeavy.

a better question is why is everyone using the 100% conversion of gas I guess it's the same people who think solar roadways is a great product .. or can pull water out of the air into a water bottle

using 100% conversion rate is claiming it's equal to 3 gallons of gas

=300 miles but in reality it's 10 gallons of gas as noted by the CX-3 which is = to the mustang version..

also btw the part were it says "Fossil Fuel Free" is a joke it should just say powered by Fossil Fuel Coal,CNG and nuclear ( are types of fossil fuels)

so unless your generating the power from wind or solar on site to the "electric car" you are still generating emissions.. that will never be off set..

unless you live near a hydro power plant it's not fossil free or negative offset

It is far easier to control emissions and more thermally efficient to generate power with turbines rather than in the individual vehicles. That is the main benefit of electric power. Given the efficiency of power transmission, it is largely irrelevant how far the charging point is from the location of the generation.

Off topic a bit but here is my idea. Build electric cars with a sturdy front and rear steel plate of specific size shape and height. Then the cars could chain together on the highway using electromagnets to attach each car front and rear to the next. Also use the automation and let them talk to each other about intention, what exit they want, overall destination, emergency braking, etc. You could even add "freeway tugs" basically a big diesel tow rig that could pull a whole chain of maybe 20 or more cars and let the electric cars use zero battery until they were at their exit point.

Just for instance a drive I make a few times a year Spokane WA to Seattle. There must be thousands of cars every hour doing the almost exact same drive. Pod them up into 20 car groups every 2 mins pulled by a tug that gets 10 mpg. 275 miles so 27.5 gallons of diesel or 1.38 gallons for each car to go 275 miles (200 mpg), but they arrive in Seattle or Spokane with a full battery remaining. The pollution out on the windy plains of Washington has far less impact than in the metro areas and then people would be less apprehensive of electric cars and limited ranges or recharge locations and time.

I think that idea will first be implemented with autonomous tractor/trailers. They will platoon to save fuel economy by closely following each other. That will then be adopted by passenger vehicles. Who knows if we ever go the final step and physically connect. I kinda doubt it since you can get most of the benefit of improved aerodynamics by a close follow, and there's little to be gained by putting the tow on 1 vehicle instead of distributing over many vehicles when they are all electric.

I think that idea will first be implemented with autonomous tractor/trailers. They will platoon to save fuel economy by closely following each other. That will then be adopted by passenger vehicles. Who knows if we ever go the final step and physically connect. I kinda doubt it since you can get most of the benefit of improved aerodynamics by a close follow, and there's little to be gained by putting the tow on 1 vehicle instead of distributing over many vehicles when they are all electric.

By utilizing a close draft, perhaps EV range would be doubled.

Daimler has put platooning development on hold. It works on the test track but not on real highways where cars cut through the platoon and break the chain. The trucks have to brake then accelerate to hook up again. Then another car breaks the chain, etc, etc....

Daimler has put platooning development on hold. It works on the test track but not on real highways where cars cut through the platoon and break the chain. The trucks have to brake then accelerate to hook up again. Then another car breaks the chain, etc, etc....

Yeah, I guess you can't have 1/4 mile of unbroken platoon since cars need gaps to exit the freeway. Might work if the "slow lane" was the far left. Maybe that's my million dollar idea for the day. Slow lanes to the left so truckers don't have to contend with idiots entering and exiting freeways... now to solve the slowing before the exit and acceleration onto the freeway problem... tomorrow's million dollar idea I'm sure.